notself wrote:When the State names a specific religion as its official religion both the State and the religion are compromised.

We're all compromised, in some fashion, just by virtue of being...

Could you explain what you mean by us all being compromised by being?

When the State establishes an official religion, it expects to have input into the expression of that religion. When a religion becomes the official religion it takes on a need for hierarchy where before none was requires. This has happened in all world religions where the State and Religion are linked. It has always resulted in the dilution of the message of the founder.

If you disagree, could you provide an example where the State/Religion combination improved the message and practice of the religion or the State?

Though one may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle, yet he is indeed the noblest victor who conquers himself. ---Dhp 103

notself wrote:When the State names a specific religion as its official religion both the State and the religion are compromised.

We're all compromised, in some fashion, just by virtue of being...

Could you explain what you mean by us all being compromised by being?

When the State establishes an official religion, it expects to have input into the expression of that religion. When a religion becomes the official religion it takes on a need for hierarchy where before none was requires. This has happened in all world religions where the State and Religion are linked. It has always resulted in the dilution of the message of the founder.

If you disagree, could you provide an example where the State/Religion combination improved the message and practice of the religion or the State?

you do know hierarchy is within the sangha without it being part of a state institution! Vinaya, Mahaparinibana sutta . . . .and the last I heard there is no official constitutional place for any religion in Thailand, all are protected with freedom of religion rights, which annoyed allot of the sangha I believe. and the queen talked about it in her birthday speech at the time. don't know of any specific sites for that but wiki has a reference in the last paragraph here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Thailand#Government_Ties

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

Manapa wrote:you do know hierarchy is within the sangha without it being part of a state institution! Vinaya, Mahaparinibana sutta . . . .and the last I heard there is no official constitutional place for any religion in Thailand, all are protected with freedom of religion rights, which annoyed allot of the sangha I believe. and the queen talked about it in her birthday speech at the time. don't know of any specific sites for that but wiki has a reference in the last paragraph here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Thailand#Government_Ties

This is from Wiki:

While Thailand is currently a constitutional monarchy, it inherited a strong Southeast Asian tradition of Buddhist kingship that tied the legitimacy of the state to its protection and support for Buddhist institutions. This connection has been maintained into the modern era, with Buddhist institutions and clergy being granted special benefits by the government, as well as being subjected to a certain amount of government oversight.

In addition to the ecclesiastic leadership of the sangha, a secular government ministry supervises Buddhist temples and monks.

When it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a combination of religion and politics.

Please quote the sections of the vinaya that establish the Supreme Patriarch and the Supreme Sangha Council.

The Supreme Patriarch or Sangharaja (Thai: พระสังฆราช) is the head of the order of Buddhist monks in Thailand. The position is formally appointed by the King of Thailand, although the actual selection is made by senior clergymen. It was first established in 1782 at the founding of the Chakri dynasty by King Rama I.

The Supreme Patriarch has legal authority to oversee both of Thailand's Theravada sub-orders, the Maha Nikaya and the Thammayut Nikaya, as well as the small minority of Mahayana Buddhists in the country. He is assisted by a Supreme Sangha Council, which is led by the Sangha Nayaka (literally "director of the sangha"). In the event that the position of Supreme Patriarch is vacant, the Sangha Council also nominates candidates for a successor to the king. There has been recent discussion about reforming the Thai Sangha's leadership structure, including a 2002 proposal which would have moved many of the Sangha Council's and the Supreme Patriarch's powers to a new executive council

Though one may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle, yet he is indeed the noblest victor who conquers himself. ---Dhp 103

We need to understand first of all, that the Thai Sangha is not a democracy, nor a loose federation of monasteries and monks, or whatever ideal form we may have read (rightly or wrongly) into the Vinaya. It is a rigid, tightly controlled hierarchy, modeled, quite explicitly, on a combination of monarchy and military dictatorship.

The rest of the blog entry is equally interesting.

Though one may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle, yet he is indeed the noblest victor who conquers himself. ---Dhp 103

Hi NotselfSo it isn't a duck that walks and quacks like a duck, but something which isn't a duck?

you said When a religion becomes the official religion it takes on a need for hierarchy where before none was requires.

I said hierarchy is within the sangha without it being part of a state institution. if I was aiming to prove anything else I would of given direct references. you implied that there was no hierarchy within the sangha before states started adopting it which is false. how the sangha adapted to meet/talk to the state and the level of involvement the state has to do with how buddhism is expressed is something one of our Thai Sangha members can answer if they so choose!

and like appicchato said "We're all compromised, in some fashion, just by virtue of being..." my take on that is twofold - we all have systems to work within - and greed hatred and delusion is in all of us to some extent.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

Read the entire link from my previous post for a different point of view on bhikkhuni ordination, the sangha and hierarchy. Whether Buddhism is the offical state religion or the unofficial state religion, politics and religions are deeply intertwined in Thailand and effect decisions made by the sangha.

Yes we are all subject to imperfections and unskillful behavior, but linking politics with religion exacerbates the unskillful.

Perhaps I am being sensitive because just as I see politics taking over Buddhism in Thailand, I see Christianity taking over politics in the USA.

Though one may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle, yet he is indeed the noblest victor who conquers himself. ---Dhp 103

Bangkok, Thailand -- Is it just for show, a ritualistic action one must perform to assert authority and to contain future female ordination? Or is it sheer vindictiveness?

The question arose when I was reading a news report on the ongoing pursuit by Wat Pa Pong forest monks to extract punitive measures from the Council of Elders for its former member Ajahn Brahm and to pressure the Office of National Buddhism to help them take over his monastery (see http://bit.ly/ax4ZUV).

Given the Council of Elders' fierce opposition to ordination of bhikkhuni or female monks, it was understandable that the Wat Pa Pong monks must do something to show their disapproval of Ajahn Brahm's support for female ordination in Perth, Australia.

The decision to expel him from the Wat Pa Pong clergy and to revoke Bodhinyana's status as a branch monastery ensued. Rightly or wrongly, this move is more than enough to distance Wat Pa Pong from the Perth ordination controversy. The matter could have ended there. Sadly, this has not been the case.Things turned ugly when Wat Pa Pong accused Ajahn Brahm of temple mismanagement, followed by an attempt to retake ownership of Bodhinyana, claiming that the property was primarily built by Thai donations and initially offered to the late master Ajahn Chah and Wat Pa Pong.

Why not let the Council of Elders decide on their own what to do with Ajahn Brahm? Why initiate the moves which do not make Wat Pa Pong look good? The questions clearly annoyed the luang por's at a recent press conference. Their stern answer: they were just giving information to the elders. Nothing more and nothing less.

Yet, Dr Amnart Buasiri of the Office of National Buddhism revealed that Wat Pa Pong had tendered a letter asking for a more effective measure from the elders to revoke Ajahn Brahm's preceptor status. He said he would discuss this issue with an assembly of Thai monks in Australia and New Zealand, as well as Wat Pa Pong's request to take back the land of Bodhinyana.

Apparently, he had not read the official statement from the Buddhist Society of Western Australia (see http://bit.ly/4qVs6U) refuting Wat Pa Pong's ownership claim and mismanagement allegations. Bodhinyana Monastery was built with money from different sources and was never given to Ajahn Chah, nor to Wat Pa Pong, says the statement. Moreover, Australian law requires that all donations and payments must be audited by a professional outside accountant. And the audited statements are presented to the society members every year.

"No temple in Thailand has to undergo such meticulous scrutiny," it adds.

The society is puzzled by the strong reaction from the Thai clergy. To start with, Ajahn Brahm was not the preceptor at the Perth ordination. Ayya Thathaaloka, an American-born Theravada bhikkhuni was. In addition, the four newly-ordained bhikkhunis belong to the Syam Nikaya of Sri Lanka, following their preceptor's affiliation, and not to the Thai clergy. "Therefore, they should be of no concern to the Thai Buddhist authorities."

Indeed, their status is similar to many bhikkhunis living and practising in Thailand. Live and let live has always been the Council of Elders' policy with foreign orders. So why the big fuss about this?

Actually, many Thai monks have given blessings to these bhikkhunis without any punitive measures from the Council of Elders. This has made Wat Pa Pong's earnest quest to punish a monk who no longer belongs to their order, mind-boggling.

Whatever the motives, many have become disillusioned by the unskilful reactions from the Wat Pa Pong hardliners who are unknowingly undermining the saintly reputation of their lineage. But it is never too late to turn things around.

Conflicts arise, and pass away, eventually leaving no traces of the commotion.

The monastics should be the ones who know this best. Now that Wat Pa Pong has parted with Ajahn Brahm, make it a civilised divorce which allows oneself to retain dignity while going their separate ways.

.......But it has already happened that monks and nuns who participated in the ordination have been refused at different monasteries, such as Vimutti in new Zealand, or Dhammagiri in Queensland. I have no idea whether this has been discussed as a formal policy or not. it was certainly not discussed at the meeting when Ajahn Brahm was expelled, nor has it been mentioned in any formal communications as far as I know.

A very different but hilarious perspective. Hitler hits out at bhikkhuni ordination

[ Link removed ]

Edit: Yea, Jack ( post below) may be right...this may be a bit extreme. It's hilarious only if one takes a position on the issue. I'll remove the link from this forum, but anyone who wants to view it can search for it on youtube with the phrase above. Apologies to anyone offended.

Last edited by pilgrim on Thu Feb 25, 2010 6:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

pilgrim wrote:A very different but hilarious perspective. Hitler hits out at bhikkhuni ordination

. . .

While you, I and the producer of the video may not agree with Ajahn Liem and Wat Pa Pong's position, and views on the subject of Bhikkhuni ordination, I don't think linking them to Hitler is the way forward, by any stretch of the imagination.

mettaJack

"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

pilgrim wrote:A very different but hilarious perspective. Hitler hits out at bhikkhuni ordination

. . .

While you, I and the producer of the video may not agree with Ajahn Liem and Wat Pa Pong's position, and views on the subject of Bhikkhuni ordination, I don't think linking them to Hitler is the way forward, by any stretch of the imagination.

mettaJack

It is a remarkably ugly, tasteless, and meanminded.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

pilgrim wrote:A very different but hilarious perspective. Hitler hits out at bhikkhuni ordination

. . .

While you, I and the producer of the video may not agree with Ajahn Liem and Wat Pa Pong's position, and views on the subject of Bhikkhuni ordination, I don't think linking them to Hitler is the way forward, by any stretch of the imagination.

"...there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle itself is frequently referred to as Godwin's Law."

Game over. You lose.

My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.

Re which, please see the Talaputa Sutta on the karmic effects of comedy.

Any beings who are not devoid of passion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of passion, focus with even more passion on things inspiring passion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of aversion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of aversion, focus with even more aversion on things inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of delusion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of delusion, focus with even more delusion on things inspiring delusion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Thus the actor — himself intoxicated & heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless — with the breakup of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell of laughter.

Re which, please see the Talaputa Sutta on the karmic effects of comedy.

Any beings who are not devoid of passion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of passion, focus with even more passion on things inspiring passion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of aversion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of aversion, focus with even more aversion on things inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of delusion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of delusion, focus with even more delusion on things inspiring delusion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Thus the actor — himself intoxicated & heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless — with the breakup of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell of laughter.

pilgrim wrote:While I support the bhikkhuni ordination, I can't help but be dissapointed at the turn of events. Why didn't Ajahn Brahm wait until this matter was discussed at the WAM in December? Did Wat Pah Pong advise AB that this punitive action is a possible consequence? I'm aware that we do not know the whole story but it seems that the current situation could be avoided.

I also do not appreciate the way Sujato's blog (Nov 3rd entry) was written. Although he clearly supports AB, there was no need to portray the disagreeing monks as though they are all ignorant jerks especially in a public blog.

All in all, a major dissapointment. Even though I continue to support AB, Ajahn Sujato and the Bhikkhuni sangha, the joy in doing so is measurably less.

Hello pilgrim,

The whole point of the now cancelled Abbots meeting in Perth in December was to respectfully and fully discuss the question of Bhikkhuni Ordination ~ and the climate was very positive, all were working together with this as an aim.

Can you imagine if there had been chopping and changing in anything to do with the Vinaya over the centuries without deep consideration and respect for all cultural and dhammic perspectives?

Jumping the gun in this unfortunate way has nothing to do with' "We are the heroes, the wonderful Supporters of Bhikkhuni Ordination" ... those "others" are not."'

It carries with it for many of us, rather another connotation of 'bull-dozing', 'taking over' and 'attention seeking'.

May the rift be healed and this not cause further splitting and negativity.

mettaChris

Ajahn Brahm had every right to give the women seeking ordination the side of the ordination that he was qualified to.

He does not have to wait for any abbots or anyone else to smile and approve. What he did was in keeping with the Vinaya, so he acted rightly. Waiting for approval by various others is only politics, not dhamma. More bhikkhus should shun to the world and live only by the Dharma, as he did. The problem is that the women may not or may not have a valid ordination from the lineage on the female side, which may constitue and invalid ordination. I am not a Buddhologist like Tilt, so I don't know. I am just suggesting that it may or may not be valid.

Monks don't need to follow any wordly dhamma. They only need to follow the Vinaya in these matters, imho.

Kevin

Whatever an enemy might do to an enemy, or a foe to a foe, the ill-directed mind can do to you even worse.

Let's not forget folks what the Buddha has said about ascetic practices or any practice for that matter. They are just expedient means, the raft to be abandoned when no longer needed. Let's us not automatically give these guys our respect because they can sit all night in the full-lotus position. Even a rock can sit for weeks without moving. Or go days without eating. Folks, one can have supranormal powers without wisdom. And wisdom is what we should be evaluating.

I don't hesitate to inform these Thai monks that they are not the last word as far as the Buddha Dhamma is concerned. [EDIT: Personal attack on these Thai monks in question removed. Retro.]

I applaud the Bhikkhunis and all those who have helped make the ordination possible. Let the Thais be. Let them keep their own self-importance. Let them nurse their wounded, childish pride in peace.

Come to the US, Australia, Canada. Let these places do the real work of encouraging the fourfold assembly.

MODERATOR NOTE: Please desist from such attacks, and familiarise yourself with the Terms Of Service for this forum prior to posting again.